The Allahabad High Court has clarified that in serious offences like highway robbery, bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of recovery of a portion of stolen cash when the entire prosecution case rests on uncorroborated informer testimony. This ruling reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for admissible evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Arjun Tyagi, is accused in Case Crime No. 55 of 2026 under Sections 310(2) and 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly participating in a highway robbery on 31.01.2026 at Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur. The prosecution alleges that the accused robbed an amount of Rs. 64,00,000 from the informant. The identities of the perpetrators remained unknown until 07.02.2026, when an informer provided details implicating three individuals: Danish, Junaid, and Akram. On 11.02.2026, the same informer disclosed the names of four additional accused, including the applicant, Arjun Tyagi.
Key Facts
- The alleged robbery occurred on 31.01.2026
- The police received initial information from an informer on 07.02.2026
- Further names, including the applicant, were disclosed by the informer on 11.02.2026
- The applicant was arrested on 21.02.2026
- An amount of Rs. 4,00,000 was recovered from the applicant’s possession on the date of arrest
- The prosecution claims the recovered currency notes were part of the sealed looted bundles
- The applicant has been in custody since 22.02.2026
- No independent evidence or eyewitness testimony has been cited to link the applicant directly to the robbery
- The prosecution relies entirely on the informer’s disclosure and the recovery
Procedural History
- 31.01.2026: Alleged highway robbery
- 07.02.2026: First information from police informer
- 11.02.2026: Additional accused names disclosed by informer
- 21.02.2026: Arrest of applicant
- 22.02.2026: Applicant taken into custody
- 03.06.2026: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16881 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 03.06.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar-X
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contends that the prosecution’s case is built on the testimony of a single police informer, which is inherently unreliable and inadmissible as substantive evidence under Indian law. He argues that recovery of Rs. 4,00,000 after 21 days of the alleged crime is implausible and does not establish participation in the robbery. He asserts that he has no prior criminal record and will cooperate fully with the trial.
The State opposes bail, asserting that the applicant is the mastermind of the crime and that the recovery of a substantial portion of the loot, coupled with statements of other accused implicating him, justifies continued custody.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail during the pendency of trial, arguing that prolonged incarceration without credible evidence violates his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be denied bail in a serious offence like highway robbery when the prosecution’s case rests exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of a police informer and a partial recovery of stolen property, without any independent evidence linking the accused to the crime?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution’s case is built on a single informer’s disclosure, which is inherently suspect and lacks corroboration. He cited State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar and Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. to emphasize that informer evidence, without independent verification, cannot form the basis of a prima facie case. He contended that recovery of Rs. 4,00,000 after 21 days from a robbery involving Rs. 64,00,000 is statistically improbable and does not establish guilt. He further submitted that the applicant has been in custody for over 40 days and has no history of flight risk or criminal antecedents.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the applicant is the main conspirator and that the recovery of a significant portion of the loot, along with statements of co-accused implicating him, establishes a strong case against him. He argued that the gravity of the offence - robbery of over Rs. 64 lakhs - warrants denial of bail, and that the informer’s information led to the arrest of multiple accused, thereby lending credibility to the investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offence but emphasized that the nature of the crime alone cannot override the procedural safeguards under Article 21. It observed that the entire prosecution case hinges on the testimony of a single police informer, which, under settled jurisprudence, is considered unreliable unless corroborated by independent evidence. The Court noted that mere recovery of a portion of the alleged loot, after a gap of 21 days, does not establish participation in the robbery, particularly where no forensic or documentary evidence links the applicant to the crime scene or the act of robbery.
"Mere recovery, by itself, may not be sufficient to implicate a person in the commission of the alleged offence."
The Court further held that the statements of other accused, if not recorded under Section 161 CrPC or otherwise admissible, cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the applicant. The absence of eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, or any material evidence connecting the applicant to the robbery rendered the case weak on its merits. The Court also took into account the applicant’s prolonged incarceration of over 40 days without a chargesheet being filed, and the absence of any allegation of violence or weapon use.
The Court reiterated the principle from State of Rajasthan v. Balchand that bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially where the evidence is not overwhelming and the accused is not a flight risk.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The applicant, Arjun Tyagi, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses; (ii) he shall cooperate sincerely in the trial without seeking adjournments; and (iii) he shall not commit any further offence. The court concerned shall verify the identity, status, and proof of residence of the applicant and sureties before accepting the bonds. In case of breach, bail may be cancelled and coercive measures taken.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Informer Evidence Alone Is Insufficient for Bail Denial
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials in cases where prosecution relies solely on informer testimony without corroboration
- Recovery of partial loot after a significant delay cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial evidence of participation
- Courts must apply the triple test (nature of offence, likelihood of flight, risk of tampering) with strict scrutiny when informer evidence is the sole basis
Bail Is Not a Reward for Prosecution’s Weakness
- The judgment reinforces that bail decisions must be based on procedural fairness, not the perceived gravity of the accusation
- Prolonged incarceration without a strong evidentiary foundation violates the presumption of innocence
- Defence counsel should routinely move for bail in cases where chargesheets are delayed and evidence is purely testimonial
Judicial Caution Against Overreliance on Police Informers
- Courts must treat informer evidence as inherently suspect and demand independent verification
- This ruling sets a precedent for challenging bail rejections in cases involving drug trafficking, extortion, and robbery where informers are commonly used
- Defence teams should file applications under Section 439 CrPC early, highlighting the absence of corroborative evidence
